The liberal side is typically over-represented in universities because being exposed to education and differing world views is detrimental to conservative’s way of thinking.
the asian case against Harvard was a bunch of rich asians being pissed they didn’t get more ‘slots’ at an ivy league school as their ticket to money and power. they had to ‘settle’ for their kids going to schools one step down where they will still have plenty of access to power and money… but they just won’t be the most ‘elite’.
both sides are greedy power hungry bastards. they just swap who they blame for societies problems
State applications for funding were scored on selection criteria worth a total of 500 points. In order of weight, the selection criteria were:[3]
Great teachers and leaders (138 total points)
Improving teacher and principal effectiveness based on performance (58 points)
Ensuring equitable distribution of effective teachers and principals (25 points)
Providing high-quality pathways for aspiring teachers and principals (21 points)
Providing effective support to teachers and principals (20 points)
Improving the effectiveness of teacher and principal preparation programs (14 points)
State success factors (125 total points)
Articulating state’s education reform agenda and LEAs’ participation in it (65 points)
Building strong statewide capacity to implement, scale up, and sustain proposed plans (30 points)
Demonstrating significant progress in raising achievement and closing gaps (30 points)
Standards and assessments (70 total points)
Developing and adopting common standards (40 points)
Supporting the transition to enhanced standards and high-quality assessments (20 points)
Developing and implementing common, high-quality assessments (10 points)
General selection criteria (55 total points)
Ensuring successful conditions for high-performing charters and other innovative schools (40 points)
Making education funding a priority (10 points)
Demonstrating other significant reform conditions (5 points)
Turning around the lowest-achieving schools (50 total points)
Turning around the lowest-achieving schools (40 points)
Intervening in the lowest-achieving schools and LEAs (10 points)
Data systems to support instruction (47 total points)
Fully implementing a statewide longitudinal data system (24 points)
Using data to improve instruction (18 points)
Accessing and using State data (5 points)
In addition to the 485 possible points from the selection criteria above, applicants were assessed based on six priorities, including the prioritization of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education which is worth another fifteen points for a possible total of 500.[3]
Priority 1, absolute priority: comprehensive approach to education reform
Priority 2, competitive preference priority: emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) (This priority was worth 15 points, bringing the “selection criteria” total to 500 points)
Priority 3, invitational priority: innovations for improving early learning outcomes
Priority 4, invitational priority: expansion and adaptation of statewide longitudinal data systems
Priority 5, invitational priority: P-20 coordination, vertical and horizontal alignment
Priority 6, invitational priority: school-level conditions for reform, innovation, and learning
The applications for Race to the Top were bolstered by local involvement: states were incentivized to get buy-in from school district superintendents and teacher unions; applications required signatures from the states’ education chiefs, governors, and attorneys general in order to qualify.[3]
2% of the harvard faculty identify as conservative, and only 16% are moderate. it’s a problem.
years ago it was more like 20% conservative, still a minority but way more representative of the general population.
some of my best professors were ‘conservative’ in my time at uni. In today’s environment they’d have never been allowed to hired because they would have ‘disqualifying’ beliefs. That’s messed up.
there is also systematic problem with these kinds of incredibly lopsided faculty environments that create a orthodoxy that is inherently problematic to have at an institution of inquiry and learning. exposure to different ideas allows you to challege such orthodoxy. I don’t want anyone going to uni to be subject an orthodoxy.
the liberal sided is over represented because conservative viewpoints are systematically discriminated against in most universities.
just bringing them up for discussion is considered sacrilegious. as a grad student I would bring up conservative talking points sometimes in my political philosophy classes and people would socially shun me and call me names for suggesting that conservative viewpoints have any legitimacy whatsoever.
it’s one thing to say you are open to differences… and another to be totally closed off to those differences in practice.
and FWIW I went to school int he early 2000s an then later again in the 2010s… and in the 2010s that is when a lot of this 'anti conservatism started. in the 2000s most people I met at uni were totally comfortable with ‘conservative’ ideas. for example, for a woman to just be a stay at home mom and that be a perfectly valid life. in 2000s nobody cared, but in 2010s all the sudden that became ‘controversial’ and if you argued a stay at home mom was a valid way for a woman to live her life, you were ‘misogynistic’. I was frankly appalled that people thought this way. I noticed they generally were accepting of certain lifestyles and believes, but totally closed off/discriminatory/hostile to others.
You’re giving us a sample size of one which doesn’t really say anything.
That one person could have an off putting personality or subscribe to the more cultural war aspect of modern conservatism which doesn’t go well if you’re talking to members of minority groups.
The liberal side is typically over-represented in universities because being exposed to education and differing world views is detrimental to conservative’s way of thinking.
deleted by creator
pretty much.
the asian case against Harvard was a bunch of rich asians being pissed they didn’t get more ‘slots’ at an ivy league school as their ticket to money and power. they had to ‘settle’ for their kids going to schools one step down where they will still have plenty of access to power and money… but they just won’t be the most ‘elite’.
both sides are greedy power hungry bastards. they just swap who they blame for societies problems
BOooOOOoTtTTTthHhHHH fuUcKiNg SiIiiIiiiDdDDDddeEeeSssSsss
deleted by creator
No, lack of education, including morons voting third party, is how we got here.
deleted by creator
Putin propaganda ✊
deleted by creator
:puppet:
Are you able to provide a source with liberals doing the same thing in their favor?
deleted by creator
Race to the Top isn’t binding funding to promoting liberal ideals and that second link is broken.
deleted by creator
What’s your problem with this?
deleted by creator
Do you have anything that backs up your claims on the money flows?
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2022/7/13/faculty-survey-political-leaning/
2% of the harvard faculty identify as conservative, and only 16% are moderate. it’s a problem.
years ago it was more like 20% conservative, still a minority but way more representative of the general population.
some of my best professors were ‘conservative’ in my time at uni. In today’s environment they’d have never been allowed to hired because they would have ‘disqualifying’ beliefs. That’s messed up.
there is also systematic problem with these kinds of incredibly lopsided faculty environments that create a orthodoxy that is inherently problematic to have at an institution of inquiry and learning. exposure to different ideas allows you to challege such orthodoxy. I don’t want anyone going to uni to be subject an orthodoxy.
Are you saying that Obama and Biden stacked the university’s hiring practices in favor of liberals?
Can you provide a source for this?
the liberal sided is over represented because conservative viewpoints are systematically discriminated against in most universities.
just bringing them up for discussion is considered sacrilegious. as a grad student I would bring up conservative talking points sometimes in my political philosophy classes and people would socially shun me and call me names for suggesting that conservative viewpoints have any legitimacy whatsoever.
it’s one thing to say you are open to differences… and another to be totally closed off to those differences in practice.
and FWIW I went to school int he early 2000s an then later again in the 2010s… and in the 2010s that is when a lot of this 'anti conservatism started. in the 2000s most people I met at uni were totally comfortable with ‘conservative’ ideas. for example, for a woman to just be a stay at home mom and that be a perfectly valid life. in 2000s nobody cared, but in 2010s all the sudden that became ‘controversial’ and if you argued a stay at home mom was a valid way for a woman to live her life, you were ‘misogynistic’. I was frankly appalled that people thought this way. I noticed they generally were accepting of certain lifestyles and believes, but totally closed off/discriminatory/hostile to others.
You’re giving us a sample size of one which doesn’t really say anything.
That one person could have an off putting personality or subscribe to the more cultural war aspect of modern conservatism which doesn’t go well if you’re talking to members of minority groups.